Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Don Phillips' writing in the November 2008 Trains issue
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Soo 6604"][quote user="Bucyrus"][quote user="Pasadena Sub"][quote user="Bucyrus"] <p>Regarding this sentence:</p><p><font size="4">"When the word went out that Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware was to be the Democratic vice presidential candidate, <font color="#ff0000">an immediate shout of praise arose from people who love trains</font>."</font></p><p>This sentence does not necessarily mean <strong><em><u>ALL</u></em></strong> people who love trains, and more importantly, the meaning is not a matter of individual interpretation. The sentence only goes so far in its meaning. The word <em>people</em> might mean all people, but it might not. Without a modifier specifying quantity of people, there is no quantity specified. The only implied specification of quantity is that the word <em>people</em> has to mean more than one person. </p><p>[/quote]</p><p>If I were to write...</p><p>"I am highly annoyed <font color="#ff0000">with people who defend Mr. Phillips</font> on this thread."</p><p>...you would interpret this to mean that I include you and your previous post in my statement, even though technically my statement could mean one, some or all of the people that have defended his writing on this thread. By the way, I am not annoyed in any way with any of the posts on this thread, I only stated that to make a point <span class="smiley">[:)]</span></p><p>[/quote]</p><p>If you said, "I am highly annoyed with people who defend Mr. Phillips on this thread," I absolutely would <u>not</u> interpret it to mean that you are including me and my above post. Why would I? Words mean things, and my post was about the meaning of words. My post had nothing to do with Mr. Phillips.</p><p>And if I were discussing Mr. Phillips, I would not defend him because I disagree with his political position, which he conveys in his columns. Yet what I said about the meaning of words still stands. </p><p>[/quote]</p><p>The first one in red includes me. I love trains. He included me in his statement. He couldn't be more wrong.</p><p>The second in red, does not include me because I don't defend Mr Phillips.</p><p>I could write, "People who love baseball, are glad the the Cubs are making the playoffs". I am including all people who love baseball. Those that love baseball are glad for the Cubs. Fans that love baseball in St. Louis are disagreeing with me because I included them in my statement.</p><p>That's the way I took it and with my quote, made it sound in a way that everybody that loves baseball, agrees with what I said.</p><p>Paul</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>When you say that Phillips included you because he said, "people who love trains," and that means <u>all</u> people who love trains, you are inferring that conclusion from what he said, but he did not say it. When you say, "People who love baseball, are glad the Cubs are making the playoffs," that is a true statement. There is no conflict with the fact that some people are not glad about it because the statement does not say <u>all</u> people are glad.</p><p>If I say, "The levy broke and ocean water poured into New Orleans," does that mean all of the ocean water poured in?</p>
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy